The complete text of the Statement of Decision in Lee et al v. Duddy et al, the landmark libel case in which Judge Leon Seyranian found The God-Men to be “in all major respects false, defamatory, and unprivileged, and, therefore, libelous.” In his decision he cited deposition testimony from the defendants as well as testimony before the court from expert witnesses and members of the local churches. These citations are linked to images of the exhibits and transcripts in the case.

Statement of Decision —The Judgment on The God-Men

The following is an accurate rendering of Judge Leon Seyranian’s Statement of Decision in the Lee v. Duddy case concerning The God-Men by Neil Duddy and the SCP.
Hyperlinks have been added to link to the appropriate supporting documentation from deposition testimony, trial testimony, or trial exhibits.
In some cases Judge Seyranian’s statement identifies a witness’s testimony supporting a particular point in the decision without citing the page number.
The links for these items have been added in the column headed “Other Trial Testimony”.

This column is not a part of the original document.
For an Adobe Acrobat version of the document without the “Other Trial Testimony” column, click here (5.4 MB file).

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
WITNESS LEE, et al., ) No. 540 585-9
)
Plaintiffs, ) STATEMENT OF DECISION
)
v. )
)
NEIL T. DUDDY, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
________________________)
This matter came on regularly for trial and was heard as an
uncontested matter as to the defendant Neil T. Duddy, because of
his failure to appear, and was heard as a default matter as to
the defendant Schwengeler-Verlag for its failure to file a
responsive pleading to the plaintiffs' First Amended and First
Supplemental Complaint. Although the trial was uncontested, the
Court feels that the plaintiffs have presented competent and
reliable evidence, and the Court was very impressed with the
stature and quality of the witnesses presented. Moreover, the
Court was provided with a complete opportunity to question and

cross examine the witnesses in order to ascertain the truth as
the Court should do in a case involving First Amendment rights,
regardless of whether the defendants appear or not. There was
nothing that the Court wanted to see or to ask that was not
provided. Furthermore, the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs
was substantiated by independent evidence from qualified expert
witnesses. Accordingly, the Court finds that the manuscript by
Neil. T. Duddy entitled The God-Men (Exhibit 1) disseminated
(published) in the United States, the book Die Sonderlehre des
Witness Lee Und Seiner Ortsgemeinde published by Schwengeler-
Verlag (Exhibit 3) disseminated (published) in Europe, and the
book The God-Men, An Inquiry Into Witness Lee and the Local
Church by Neil T. Duddy and the SCP published by Inter-Varsity
Press (Exhibit 5) disseminated (published) in the United States
and England, are in all major respects false, defamatory and
unprivileged, and, therefore, libelous. (California Civil Code
§45)
In addition, the Court further finds:
1. All of the defendants' publications create the image
that Witness Lee and William Freeman are leaders of a cult and
that the Church in Anaheim is a cult. All of the express and
implied statements to that effect are false and defamatory.
A "cult" today is generally understood to involve a
centralized authority that manipulates social influences in order
to gain control over people for devious ends. (Testimony of Dr.
H. Newton Malony, Psychologist and Professor of Psychology at

Fuller Theological Seminary.) The epitome of the cult leader and
cult is that of Jim Jones and the Peoples' Temple. (Testimony of
Dr. J. Gordon Melton, Director of the Institute for the Study of
American Religions, author of the Encyclopedia of American
Religions, and a well qualified expert on the subject of "new
religions.", pages 20, 39 and 92 of the trial transcript of May
28, 1985, hereafter "Tr.")
The depositions of defendant Neil Duddy, (pages 738-40, 782)
and James Sire (Editor of Inter-Varsity Press and member of Board
of Reference of Spiritual Counterfeits Project (SCP)) (Vol.5, p.
354-5) indicate that the authors and publishers knew that their
publications could convey such an impression and readers would
reasonably so understand the publications. This was confirmed by
testimony of the expert witnesses.
The finding that these statements are false and defamatory
as to the plaintiffs is supported by the testimony of the expert
witnesses Dr. J. Gordon Melton; Dr. (Father) John Saliba, S.J.,
of the University of Detroit, an expert in the study of new
religions and "anti-cult" organizations; the Reverend Dr. Eugene
Van Ness Goetchius, an Episcopal priest and a Professor of
Theology at the Episcopal Divinity School affiliated with Harvard
University; Dr. Rodney Stark, Professor of Sociology at the
University of Washington; and Dr. H. Newton Malony. These
experts unanimously testified that plaintiff Witness Lee was a
Christian teacher and preacher and the Church in Anaheim (and all
Local Churches) is an evangelical Christian body and that

plaintiff William T. Freeman is likewise a Christian teacher and
preacher.
It is the finding of the Court that defendants made these
statements with knowledge of their falsity and deliberately to
create the image of the plaintiffs as such a cult. This finding
is supported by the testimony of the expert witnesses, as well as
Duddy's testimony that the advertisement correlating Witness Lee
with Jim Jones in Die Sonderlehre des Witness Lee und Seiner
Ortsgemeinde was unfair. (Duddy, pp 784-785)
2. The express and implied statements in defendants'
publications that plaintiffs either engage in or advocate
deceptive recruiting practices in order to bring people into the
Local Church are false and defamatory.
Duddy intended to convey to the readers that Witness Lee's
teaching could cause members to lie, be deceitful and engage in
deceptive proselytizing practices. (Duddy, pp. 433-435, 530-531,
754, 2155, 2157). Readers would reasonably so understand the
publications.
The finding of falsity of these statements is supported by
the testimony of present members. It is also supported by Dr.
Malony (an expert on conversion processes) together with his
survey of current and former members of the Local Church (Ex.
24), who unanimously confirmed that there was no such deception,
All witnesses established that there were no secret beliefs
as expressed and implied in the publications and all such
statements are therefore, also false and defamatory.

The principal "case history" of such conduct reported in the
publications was that of "Cia" or "Rebecca" who in real life was
Cindy Meinecke.
Mrs. Meinecke testified at trial as to the falsity of the
general tenor of the story as well as the falsity of virtually
all the "facts" regarding the alleged incident. The falsity was
also confirmed by Son Rockstroh, the alleged proselyter.
It is the finding of this Court that the defendants made the
foregoing statements or implications with the knowledge that they
were false or with a reckless disregard of the truth or falsity
thereof. Defendant Duddy admitted that he had not checked with
any of the principal persons actually involved in the alleged
"case history" (Duddy deposition (hereafter "Duddy") pp 549, 957,
1049) and did not verify information from sources that were
available to him. (Duddy, pp 990-1, 994-5, 1016, 963) Moreover,
Brooks Alexander (Co-founder of SCP, cc-author of all the
publications (Duddy, pp 248, 1169 and Alexander, p 79)) and James
Sire testified that they saw no documentation of any of the
statements regarding Cindy or Rebecca. (Alexander deposition
(hereafter "Alexander"), p. 1604; Sire deposition (hereafter
"Sire"), Vol. 6, p. 484) Alexander admitted that although he came
to doubt Duddy's competence to do factual investigation
(Alexander, pp 1605-6; 1610-11) and was concerned as to the
validity of Duddy's informants, (Alexander, pp 1610-1611) he did
no checking of Duddy's work for factual accuracy. (Alexander, pp
1424; 1527) Dr. Stark confirmed that Duddy also did not do any

checking on the Cindy incident. As Dr. Stark stated, "This is
the worst kind of rumor mongering." (Tr. pp 171-172)
Dr. Stark (co-author of Lofland-Stark Model) testified that
Duddy did not accurately present his model of religious
conversions that Duddy used to explain the Local Churches'
alleged recruitment practices. Dr. Stark stated that Duddy
"skips everything important in the model and comes out with some
flat assertions that are completely, almost diabolically, the
reverse of what the model says". (Tr., p 162) Dr. Stark stated
that assuming Duddy had actually read Stark's presentation of the
model, Stark would have to conclude that Duddy's
misrepresentation was "malicious." (Tr., p. 163) Dr. Malony
also criticized Duddy's misuse of Stark's conversion model and
stated that there was no validity to defendants' statements that
the Local Churches' recruitment practices were somehow evil and
qualitatively different from those of other Christian
organizations.
3. The express and implied statements in defendants'
publications that Witness Lee rules the Local Churches with an
"iron rod" or "with a firm hand" are false and defamatory.
Duddy intended to convey to the readers that Witness Lee was
a virtual dictator over too many details of Local Church life
(Duddy, pp. 2004-5) and readers would reasonably so understand
the publications.
The finding of falsity is based on testimony of the
plaintiffs and their witnesses, including Dr. Melton, Dr. Saliba,

and Dr. Malony together with his survey of current and former
members (Exhibit 24). Dr. Melton testified, based on his own
investigation, that Lee's position in the Local Church was that
of a preacher and teacher rather than exercising "administrative
power in a kingly way" as the publications had asserted and that
no such hierarchy existed. (Tr. 39) Dr. Malony's survey results
(Ex. 24) were consistent with Dr. Melton's testimony.
It is the finding of the Court that the defendants made the
foregoing statements with the knowledge that they were false or
with a reckless disregard of the truth or falsity.
There was evidence that the authors and the publishers
distorted statements made by Witness Lee in order to create an
impression that Witness Lee asserts and imposes complete and
unchallengeable control over church affairs and church members'
lives. Jack Buckley (an SCP author of God-Men I whose work Duddy
and SCP carried over into the publications sued upon) admitted
that quotations from Witness Lee's work were taken out of
context, misused and created a false and misleading
representation of Witness Lee's teaching in that regard. (Buckley
deposition (hereafter "Buckley"), pp 728-9, 741-2, 766 and 767)
Dr. J. Gordon Melton concluded that given Duddy's education and
claims of having read Witness Lee's writings, the consistent
distortions of quotations indicate deliberate misrepresentations.
(Tr. pp 40-46) Dr. Saliba's testimony also confirmed Duddy's
consistent misrepresentation of Witness Lee's writings in this
and other areas. (Tr. pp 117-119, 135)

The fact of defendants' willful distortion is further
substantiated by the draft of the original manuscript which
stated:
"Reliable sources tell us that Lee
himself does not rule with an iron rod."
(Exhibit 62)
The language in that draft following that statement was
consistent with the concept that Witness Lee does not exercise
such control. Nevertheless, that statement and its context was
subsequently changed to assert in the publications exactly the
opposite meaning.
4. The express and implied statements in defendants'
publications that plaintiffs or any of the Local Churches engage
in mental manipulation, or any of the various forms of what is
commonly referred to as "brainwashing" or "thought reform" are
false and defamatory. The statements concerning the practice of
pray-reading and calling on the name of the Lord as being mental
manipulation techniques causing, among other things, blurred
mental acuity is also false.
It was Duddy's intention to convey to the readers that "soft
thought reform" was utilized by Witness Lee and the Local Church
which would result in members sacrificing their individual and
personal worth and withdraw from society. (Duddy, pp. 1092-1093)
and readers would reasonably so understand the publications.
The finding of falsity is supported by the testimony of Dr.
Malony and his survey (Ex. 24), Dr. Goetchius, Dr. Saliba, and
other plaintiffs' witnesses including Cindy Meinecke and Local

Church members Dr. Steven Johnson, Christopher Leu, Dr. Herbert
Zimmer, Dr. George Chua and Mrs. Jeanie Kong. Dr. Malony
testified that pray-reading, far from being a manipulative or
eastern mystical technique, was a helpful means to approach the
Bible. Dr. Melton testified that the practices are not
"technological and pagan", they do involve the use of mental
faculties, they do not alter consciousness. (Tr. p. 25). Dr.
Melton found no evidence of loss of "mental acuity." (Tr. p. 91)
It is the finding of this Court that the statements were
made by the defendants knowing they were false or with a reckless
disregard of the truth or falsity.
Brooks Alexander, the author of the appendix which purported
to describe these manipulative techniques, testified that he
could not name one person who told him they had blurred mental
acuity from said alleged practices, nor had he asked any member
regarding it, nor did he know for a fact that there was any
elimination of consciously directed thought from pray-reading or
calling on the name of the Lord. (Alexander, pp 1281-2, 1319-20,
1848)
5. The express and implied statements in the defendants'
publications that plaintiffs and Local Church leaders control
every aspect of church members' lives, including discouraging
friendships, prohibiting dating, arranging marriages, controlling
the use of finances, dictating where members should live or work
are all false and defamatory.

Duddy intended to convey to the readers that arranged
marriages occur in the Local Church (Duddy, pp 2253-2254) and
readers would reasonably so understand the publications. Dr.
Saliba testified that Duddy attempted to convey to the readers
that Witness Lee rules "like a despot and the elders are more or
less like little despots", "they control everything and you are
just merely submissive to them." (Tr. p. 126)
The finding of falsity is supported by the testimony of all
the witnesses, especially Dr. Melton and Dr. Malony, whose
survey (Ex. 24) negated the allegations of control of members'
lives.
It is the finding of this Court that the statements were
made by the defendants knowing they were false or with a reckless
disregard of the truth or falsity.
Neil Duddy's testimony indicated that he had never seen
anything in the teachings discouraging friendships, prohibiting
dating, nor any records of arranged marriages nor could he recall
anybody that had such records. (Duddy, pp 1145-1150, 2256-7)
Alexander testified there was no confirmation of such arranged
marriages. (Alexander, pp 1586-7) Sire has no recollection of
any substantiation of the charge of arranged marriages (Sire,
Vol. 5, pp 352-358) The testimony of William Freeman and Dr.
Steven Johnson, as well as other evidence introduced, established
that such charges were false. (Exhibit 70)
6. The express and implied statements in defendants'
publications that Witness Lee and the Local Church elders isolate

members from society and forbid or discourage members from
watching television, reading newspapers, going to movie theaters,
and participating in sports, is false and defamatory.
Duddy testified that he intended to depict the Local
Churches as quarantining members from relatives who were outside
of the Local Church (Duddy, pp 1644-5) and causing people to
withdraw and be isolated from society (Duddy, pp 1092-1093) and
readers would reasonably so understand the publications.
The finding of falsity is based upon the testimony of
plaintiffs' witnesses including Dr. Melton (Tr. p 95), Dr.
Malony, his survey (Ex. 24), Dr.Goetchius (Tr. pp 150-152),
Cindy Meinecke, Dr. Herbert Zimmer, Dr. Steven Johnson, and
Christopher Leu. See also Duddy's deposition at pages 1130-1131,
1138-1140 and 1150, wherein he acknowledged he has no evidence of
any such conduct.
It is the finding of this Court that the statements were
made knowing they were false or with a reckless disregard of the
truth or falsity thereof, in that Duddy testified he had no
evidence of any such conduct. (Duddy, pp 1130-1131, 1138-1140,
1150)
7. The express and implied statements in defendants'
publications that Local Church elders have created an
unchallengeable power structure that makes it impossible for
church members to maturely exercise their faith and bear
responsibility for their own lives are false and defamatory.

Duddy intended by those statements to convey to readers that
Witness Lee and "those who cooperate with him" are social
manipulators (Duddy, p. 818) who determine God's will for members
and their families without even being consulted (Duddy, p. 2252).
Alexander testified that the book implies that the church elders
are involved in dominance and control over members. (Alexander
p. 1571) Sire testified that the statements indicate removal of
members to a totalitarian and structured environment. (Sire, Vol.
6, p. 637) Readers would reasonably so understand the
publications.
The finding that these statements are false is supported by
the testimony of Cindy Meinecke, and current members who
testified at trial, as well as Dr. Saliba and Dr. Malony's survey
of current and former members (Ex. 24). Moreover, the testimony
of Witness Lee, William Freeman, and Anaheim elder Eugene Gruhler
indicated that the elders do not constitute an unchallengeable
power structure. Rather, members have the freedom to disagree
with elders and with Witness Lee, and that members are encouraged
to seek God's will for themselves and to bear responsibility for
their lives. Dr. Goetchius testified of his observation as to
the maturity and well-developed character generally of the Local
Church members and their families with whom he had personally
interacted. (Tr. pp 149-152)
It is the finding of the Court that the statements were made
knowing they were false or with a reckless disregard of the truth
or falsity thereof.

Duddy could not recall the name of one actual Local Church
member that told Duddy that he did not make his own decisions.
(Duddy, p. 1150) Moreover, Duddy stated under oath that it was
not his testimony that members do not make their own decisions in
matters of importance in their personal lives. Duddy also did
not know if members made such decisions without consulting the
elders. (Duddy, p. 1148) Jack Buckley testified that before SCP
made the statement that Local Church members "prefer submission"
over the "exercise of personal judgment and individual
decision," SCP should have made some investigation to support the
statement. Buckley, however, was not aware of any such
investigation by SCP. (Buckley, p. 771) Buckley further
testified that the limit of his work in investigating the
government by the elders in the Local Church was to read
materials given to him by SCP and to talk with SCP members.
(Buckley, p. 721) Buckley admitted that The God-Men quoted
Witness Lee's statement, concerning ministers of the Holy Spirit,
out of context and misused it to convey the impression that the
elders have authoritative power over members. (Buckley, p. 766-
767) Dr. Saliba confirmed the misuse of this quote by Witness
Lee. (Tr. pp 126-127)
8. The express and implied statements in defendants'
publications that Witness Lee and the other plaintiffs are
teaching and advocating conduct that would allow or encourage
church members to engage in immoral behavior are false and
defamatory.

Duddy intended to convey to the readers that Witness Lee's
teaching instructed one to listen to intuition and feelings, but
in no case consider the Scripture; that one can engage in sexual
assault, including rape, be a liar and deceitful and still regard
himself as a good Christian; that you abide by your inner
feelings, regardless of what the Scripture says; that unlike the
Christian community, Witness Lee's teachings enhance immorality.
(Duddy, pp 531, 566, 568-569, 673). Readers would reasonably so
understand the publications.
All witnesses testified as to the falsity of all such
statements or implications and established that all the writings
of Witness Lee taught the Biblically high standard of morality.
Dr. Maloney's survey (Ex. 24) also supported the finding of
falsity, as does the evidence of the author's and publishers'
deliberate distortion of statements by Witness Lee.
It is the finding of the Court that the statements were made
knowing they were false or with a reckless disregard of the truth
or falsity thereof.
Dr. Melton testified that Duddy conveyed to the readers
exactly the opposite of what Witness Lee teaches regarding
morality (Tr. p. 59) and that for Duddy to convey such an
impression was either deliberate or a reckless disregard of what
Witness Lee said (Tr. p. 75-76); the authority of the Scripture
in Witness Lee's teachings was misrepresented by Duddy to create
the idea that Witness Lee encourages immorality, whereas, Witness

Lee repeatedly upholds the Bible and its moral commandments. (Tr.
pp 57-58)
Dr. Goetchius testified that Duddy's use of Witness Lee's
writings was a deliberate, careful misrepresentation of Witness
Lee's teachings, including the teachings on morality. (Tr. p.
141, 143)
Dr. Saliba testified the quotes were taken out of context,
"I get the impression they were twisted around to mean what he
wanted them to mean." (Tr. pp 125-126)
The defendants' own testimony established that the
statements were made knowing them to be false, or with a reckless
disregard of the truth or falsity thereof.
Duddy admitted that Witness Lee teaches that people should
follow the Ten Commandments and live a life higher than the Ten
Commandments but that he never told the readers that Witness Lee
taught this. (Duddy, pp. 406-7, 411-412)
Buckley testified that:
". . . God Men I as written has painted
a false picture as far as witness Lee's
teachings on morality."
(Buckley, p. 843)
David Adeney, a member of the Board of Reference of SCP and
former missionary to China testified that he has never seen any
teachings in Witness Lee's writings that would allow one to be a
liar, deceitful or engage in rape and still regard himself as a
good Christian. (Adeney, p. 183)

9. The express and implied statements in defendants'
publications that the plaintiffs or church members that follow
plaintiffs' teachings are "moral dwarfs," which the authors
define as persons whose conduct falls below the standard of the
law, are false and defamatory.
Duddy again intended to convey to the readers that Witness
Lee's teachings enhance immorality. (Duddy, p. 623) Readers
would reasonably so understand the publications.
The finding that these statements are false is supported by
the testimony of Jack Buckley (Buckley, p. 796), the testimony of
plaintiffs' expert witnesses and Cindy Meinecke.
It is the finding of the Court that the statements were made
knowing they were false or with a reckless disregard of the truth
or falsity.
Dr. Melton testified that Duddy not only distorted Witness
Lee's teachings in characterizing them as creating "moral
pygmyism", but also distorted Benjamin Warfield's intent in
creating the term. Dr. Melton testified that there are numerous
writings of Witness Lee that are directly contrary to what Duddy
conveyed to the readers. (Tr. pp. 69-73)
Dr. Goetchius testified that a reasonable interpretation of
Duddy's charge of "moral pygmyism" would be that of someone who
is short on morals or lacking in moral perception and
understanding. He further testified that there was no
justification for such a charge against Witness Lee's teachings
or those who follow it and to the contrary, Witness Lee's

teachings require a morality higher than the ethical code of the
law (Tr., pp. 143-144)
Buckley testified that he had not found anything in his
reading of Witness Lee that would justify calling people who
believe in his teachings moral dwarfs. (Buckley, p. 796)
10. The express and implied statements in defendants'
publications that plaintiffs have publicly humiliated members and
that some Anaheim church members and an alleged Northern
California leader were hospitalized for psychiatric care because
of plaintiffs' acts are false and defamatory.
Duddy testified that he intended to convey to the readers
that Witness Lee periodically publicly humiliates members.
(Duddy, p. 1159) Sire testified that he recognized these
allegations as being potentially libelous. (Sire, Vol. 4, p. 95-
97, Vol. 6 520-521), Ex. 68) Readers would reasonably so
understand the publications.
Plaintiffs' evidence established that there was no such
conduct by Witness Lee or any of the plaintiffs and that no such
hospitalizations ever occurred.
Dr. Melton testified he found no evidence of humiliation or
hospitalization. (Tr. p. 92) Dr. Malony's survey (Ex. 24)
confirmed, even from ex-members, that there was no such
humiliation.
It is the finding of the Court that the statements were made
knowing they were false or with a reckless disregard of the truth
or falsity thereof.

Duddy never confirmed one hospitalization and could not name
one person allegedly hospitalized. He had no documentation
(Duddy pp 1166-68), nor did he feel he should check. Duddy also
asked the alleged Northern California church leader for an
affidavit supporting such an allegation but was unable to obtain
one. (Duddy, p. 1165) Duddy admitted that he has never been
advised by any medical or psychological expert that any member of
a local church has suffered due to Lee's theology or alleged
thought reform. (Duddy, p. 1089)
Albrecht, an SCP director, testified that it was Duddy's
obligation to verify the allegations and that he should have
tried to speak to the people allegedly hospitalized. (Albrecht,
pp. 117-118) It was Duddy's primary responsibility to find out
who allegedly went to the hospital. (Albrecht, pp 119-120)
Squires, a director of SCP and the person in charge of
defending the present lawsuit, was not aware of any evidence that
a Northern California church leader was hospitalized because or
Witness Lee's conduct. (Squires, p. 723) He could not remember
any response to questionnaires he recently sent out concerning
church members needing psychiatric care. (Squires, p. 760) He
was not aware of any investigation done to determine the accuracy
of the psychological or sociological areas of the book.
(Squires, pp. 724-725)
Sire, of Inter-Varsity Press, never received any
information from Duddy concerning the alleged hospitalization of

the Northern California church leader nor had he ever seen any
records dealing with the matter. (Sire, Vol. 4, pp. 97-98)
11. The express and implied statements in defendants'
publications that William Freeman, or any elder in the church in
Anaheim, deceived Fuller Seminary is false and defamatory.
Furthermore, the express and implied statements in said
publications that "this alleged lack of forthrightness in self-
representation is a quality which the Local Church displays" is
also false and defamatory.
Duddy intended to convey to the readers that William Freeman
had not been forthright in his representation to Fuller and that
he was concealing certain information, also that Local Church
members are people who conceal, which he represented was an
accurate description of their behavior and represented the
general character and quality of the Local Church. (Duddy, pp
430-432, 433-435). Readers would reasonably so understand the
publications.
The finding of falsity is based upon testimony of Dr. Cecil
Melvin Robeck, Jr., Director of Academic Services of Fuller
Seminary, formerly Director of Admissions, and the plaintiff
William Freeman, together with the exhibits presented, (Ex. 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, and 19) which established conclusively that there
was no concealment, deception or lack of forthrightness nor had
any member of the Fuller faculty made any such statement (Tr. pp
81-89) and which also proved that such an allegation was a
fabrication by the defendants. Furthermore, the foregoing

evidence, together with the testimony of the expert witnesses
established that all allegations of concealment, deception or
lack of forthrightness on the part of the Local Church, its
leaders or members are also false.
It is the finding of the Court that the statements were made
knowing them to be false or with a reckless disregard of the
truth or falsity thereof.
Sire confirmed that the Fuller Seminary admissions officials
stated that Freeman was as forthright as possible and there was
no thought of misrepresentation. (Ex. 47) Based upon that
evidence Sire pulled the Freeman-Fuller incident from The God-
Men, published by Inter-Varsity Press.
12. The express and implied statements in defendants'
publications that plaintiffs use fear tactics or threats of
reprisal in order to keep members loyal to the Local Church and
prevent them from leaving are false and defamatory.
Duddy intended to convey to the readers that the Local
Church harassed and persecuted former Local Church members.
(Duddy, pp. 1774, 2235). Readers would reasonably so understand
the publications.
The finding of falsity is based upon the testimony of
plaintiffs' witnesses, including present members, Cindy Meinecke
and Dr. Melton who established that there were no fear tactics or
threats. Dr. Melton's testimony was that members were not being
held against their will but were in the Church voluntarily, their

participation was not coerced but rather because they enjoyed
being in the Local Church. (Tr. p. 96-97)
It is the finding of the Court that the statements were made
knowing them to be false or with a reckless disregard of the
truth or falsity thereof.
13. The express and implied statements in defendants'
publications that "most people who have left the Local Church
find it necessary to relocate" in order to avoid Local Church
persecution and that any such persecution occurred (including
vandalizing of ex-members' homes) are all false and defamatory.
Duddy intended to convey to the readers that most people who
leave the Local Church find it necessary to relocate to avoid
persecution. (Duddy, pp. 896-898)
The finding of falsity is based upon the testimony of Eugene
Gruhler which established that former members generally do not
move away. Those that do move away do not do so because of fear
of persecution as alleged. His testimony also established that
some former members actually moved back into the area of Local
Churches. Mr. Gruhler also investigated the allegations of
vandalism and found that they were not only false but that the
persons allegedly reporting the same denied such reports.
It is the finding of the Court that the statements were made
knowing them to be false or with a reckless disregard of the
truth or falsity thereof.

Duddy admitted that no one in SCP, including himself had
ever checked with anyone who allegedly had a home vandalized.
(Duddy, p. 920)
14. The express and implied statements in defendants'
publications that Witness Lee, or any of the plaintiffs, were
guilty of financial mismanagement including any alleged misuse of
$235,000 intended for a Stuttgart meeting hall are false and
defamatory.
It was Duddy's intention to convey to the readers a possible
violation of law in the misuse of funds and also to demonstrate
financial mismanagement. (Duddy, pp. 822-823, 839, 840, 849)
Readers would reasonably so understand the publications.
The finding of falsity is based upon testimony and
documentary evidence presented at the trial which established
that the funds for a Stuttgart meeting hall were originally
forwarded to the Church in Stuttgart for the purpose represented.
(Ex. 6 and 7) The funds were returned to the United States only
after the proposed transaction in Stuttgart failed. The money
was to be held in the United States, earning a higher rate of
interest than in Germany, until the Church in Stuttgart found a
suitable meeting hall. The Church in Stuttgart continued its
efforts to obtain a meeting hall, (Ex. 31) which was known by all
defendants prior to the publication of either Die Sonderlehre des
Witness Lee Und Seiner Ortsgemeinde or The God-Men published by
Inter-Varsity Press. (Ex. 46) (Mr. Sire of Inter-Varsity Press
also had knowledge of this before publication of The God-Men)

(Ex. 46)) The Church in Stuttgart found a suitable meeting hall
and received the money with interest, upon its request, prior to
the publication of Die Sonderlehre des Witness Lee Und Seiner
Ortsgemeinde. Although that purchase was unable to be completed,
the money thereafter remained in Stuttgart with the Church in
Stuttgart and was ultimately used for the purchase of the
Church's present meeting hall.
Duddy acknowledged that such facts do not indicate
mismanagement of money or deception. (Duddy pp. 835-837)
It is the finding of the Court that the statements were
published knowing them to be false or with a reckless disregard
of the truth or falsity thereof.
Albrecht testified it was irresponsible journalism to
publish allegations of mismanagement of money without having some
documentation. (Albrecht, p. 242) No such documentation was ever
produced. (Sire, Vol. 5, pp 301-3)
Duddy conceded he never contacted anyone in the Church in
Stuttgart or the Church in Anaheim regarding the transaction.
(Duddy, pp. 826-7, 840-1, 875) His sole source of alleged
information was Max Rapoport, whom he knew was in conflict with
the Local Church. Duddy had been warned by SCP to be careful of
ex-members' statements and to check with other sources to confirm
the accuracy of such statements. (Duddy, pp. 824-6) Duddy did
not. Duddy had obvious reasons to doubt the veracity and
accuracy of any report by Rapoport. (St. Amant v. Thompson (1968)
390 U.S. 727, 732, 20 L.Ed.2d 262, 267-268)

Duddy was also unable to persuade Rapoport to verify the
alleged information by an affidavit. (Duddy, p. 865, Ex. 43)
Sire recognized the lack of documentation as a major problem
of this accusation and noted the allegation as being "libel".
(Ex. 42 and 41) Sire did not recall seeing any documentation nor
asking for any. (Sire, Vol. 5, p. 301-303)
15. All of the defendants intended to convey to the readers
all of the false statements set forth above or recklessly
disregarded the false and defamatory meanings that would be
conveyed to the readers.
This is supported by the testimony of all experts as well as
the deposition testimony of Duddy, Alexander, Sire and Buckiey
offered by plaintiffs.
16. All of the false statements set forth above were
defamatory in that the same convey to the readers that the
plaintiffs Witness Lee and William Freeman are leaders of a
"cult," and the Church in Anaheim is such a "cult". The false
statements also convey to the readers that plaintiffs are engaged
in a program of deceptive recruiting practices that prey upon
weak and vulnerable people in order to bring them under the
plaintiffs' total subjugation; that plaintiffs control every area
of Local Church members' lives through the use of fear and other
various techniques of mental manipulation and social isolation.
The statements also convey to the readers that plaintiffs are
teaching principles that allow, encourage, or condone immoral
conduct; also, that plaintiffs are exploiting these people

financially for plaintiffs' own gain and further that those who
leave are persecuted and threatened with disaster.
This is supported by the testimony of all experts and the
presentation of the cover of The God-Men, by the American
Broadcasting Company on television for a program on mind-
manipulating cults, which cover contains the name of the
plaintiff, Witness Lee, together with a caricature of him.
17. The plaintiff Witness Lee has been exposed to hatred,
contempt, ridicule, and obloquy by reason of the false and
defamatory statements, and in addition his calling as a minister
of the Bible for over 50 years has been severely and irreparably
harmed. His reputation has also been severely and irreparably
damaged. (Scott v. Times Mirror, (1919) 181 Cal. 345, 365) In
addition, the plaintiff Witness Lee has suffered severe emotional
distress from these charges (Douglas v. Janis, (1974) 43
Cal.App.3d 931, 940 and Waite v. San Fernando Publishing Co.,
(1918) 178 Cal. 303, 306) in knowing that his family and those
who follow his teachings have likewise been exposed to hatred,
contempt, ridicule, and obloquy, have had family relations
destroyed and in some instances have lost their jobs, all because
of following his teachings. Plaintiff Witness Lee has suffered
further emotional distress because of the harm done to his wife,
children and grandchildren from the severe and irreparable damage
to Witness Lee's reputation.
This is supported by the testimony of all expert witnesses,
present members and the ABC-TV programs. (Ex. 84a and b)

18. That the sum of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) is
a reasonable sum to award the plaintiff Witness Lee for the
damages sustained by him by reason of all of the libelous
publications involved in this action as against the defendants
Neil Duddy and Schwengeler-Verlag.
19. The plaintiff, the Church in Anaheim has been exposed
to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy by reason of the false
and defamatory statements, and has been severely and irreparably
harmed (Vegod Corp. v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., (1979) 25
Cal.3d 763, 770) in its function and position as a Christian
church, and in addition has suffered the loss of members and
potential members and the benefits therefrom, as well as having
its members and their families exposed to hatred, contempt
ridicule, and obloquy.
20. That the sum of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00)
is a reasonable sum to award the plaintiff the Church in Anaheim
for the damages sustained by it by reason of all of these
libelous publications as against the defendants Neil Duddy and
Schwengeler-Verlag.
21. The plaintiff William Freeman has been exposed to
hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy by reason of the false
and defamatory statements and, in addition, his calling as a
minister of the Bible for over 20 years has been severely and
irreparably harmed. His reputation has been severely and
irreparably damaged. In addition, the plaintiff William Freeman
has suffered severe emotional distress from these charges and in

knowing that his family and those who follow his teachings have
likewise been exposed to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy.
Further, the plaintiff William Freeman has suffered damages
because he was the only Church in Anaheim elder named in these
publications, the only church leader, other than Witness Lee,
against whom all the accusations were being made, and because he
was the only Local Church elder who attended Fuller Seminary
during the time period mentioned in these publications.
Plaintiff, William Freeman, has suffered further emotional
distress because of the harm done to his wife, children and
grandchildren from the severe and irreparable damage done to
William Freeman's reputation.
22. That the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
($500,000.00) is a reasonable sum to award the plaintiff William
Freeman for the damages sustained by reason of all of these
libelous publications as against the defendants Neil Duddy and
Schwengeler-Verlag.
23. The Court finds that none of the plaintiffs are public
figures. (Gertz v. Welch, (1974) 418 U.S. 345, 41 L.Ed.2d 808,
94 S.Ct. 2997; Hutchinson v. Proxmire, (1979) 443 U.S. 111, 135,
61 L.Ed.2d 411, 431, 91 S.Ct. 2675) Therefore, under the
principles of Gertz v. Welch, the plaintiffs need not prove
"actual malice" (knowing falsity or reckless disregard of the
truth or falsity) in order to recover compensatory damages.
Nevertheless, under the principles of Gertz v. Welch, supra., in
order to recover punitive damages, the plaintiffs must establish

"actual malice." The plaintiffs indicated at the outset of this
trial and hearing that they intended to establish "actual malice"
and the Court is satisfied that they have done so. The evidence
indicated that in almost all instances where the defendants
purported to quote from Witness Lee's statements they did in fact
distort and take out of context such statements by Witness Lee in
order to arrive at a predetermined result or conclusion. This
is supported by the testimony of the plaintiffs and the testimony
of Dr. Melton, (Tr., pp 16, 18, 23, 46, 48-49), Dr. Saliba, (Tr.,
pp 109, 114, 117-118, 135), Dr. Stark, (Tr., pp 162-163, 171-
174), and Dr. Goetchius (Tr. pp 141-142). In addition, the
evidence has established that the defendants also distorted the
sociological model of religious conversion by Lofland and Stark
in order to attempt to fabricate a theory of deceptive
recruitment by Local Church leaders and members allegedly based
upon the plaintiff Witness Lee's teachings. The testimony of Dr.
Rodney Stark, one of the model's authors, convinces the Court
that the distortion was deliberate and intentional. (Tr., pp
162-163, 169, 171-172) (St. Amant v. Thompson (1968) 390 U.S.
727, 732, 20 L.Ed.2d 262, 267-8, 88 S.Ct. 1323) Furthermore, the
deposition testimony of Duddy, Alexander, Buckley and Sire
confirm that the defamatory statements were published in some
instances knowing they were false and in other instances with a
reckless disregard of the truth or falsity thereof.
24. The Court also finds that the defendants' conduct in
publishing the books and manuscript referred to above was

intended to vex, annoy, and injure the plaintiffs and to destroy
the ministries of all three plaintiffs.
This is supported by evidence that SCP, Duddy's employer,
and co-author, had a long standing animosity against the Local
Church dating back to the early 1970s and the loss of some of its
members. This was confirmed by James Miller and Jack Sparks, co-
founder of SCP. (Sparks, p. 16) Dr. Melton testified that SCP
came out second best in these confrontations. (Tr. pp. 48-49) In
addition, documentary and deposition testimony disclosed that
Inter-Varsity perceived itself to be in a competitive
relationship with the Local Churches on college campuses in
preaching the Gospel and because of the loss of its members to
the Local Churches (Sire, Vol. 4, pp. 47-48, 58-59; Vol. 5, p.
228; Ex. 85 (Former Ex. 381.240) and therefore, solicited the aid
of Duddy and SCP in expanding SCP's prior publication, The God-
Men I, so as to add the so-called "sociological" section which
contained most of the defamatory statements referred to above
(Ex. 85 (Former Ex. 383.4)). In responding to their
solicitation, Duddy presented to Inter-Varsity a "sales pitch"
that the book "may contribute to the Local Churches' demise."
(Ex. 38)
Testimony and documentary evidence also establishes that the
defendant Schwengeler-Verlag had a history of being in publishing
competition with the Church in Stuttgart concerning the works of
Watchman Nee and also solicited the aid of Duddy and SCP to
attempt to discredit the Church. Duddy knowingly and wilfully

joined in these endeavors to harm, if not destroy the ministries
of the plaintiffs (as well as the Churches throughout the world)
(Ex. 38, 40). In addition, Schwengeler-Verlag inserted in Die
Sonderlehre des Witness Lee und Seiner Ortsgemeinde an
advertisement for a book on Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple and
correlated it with the plaintiffs by the language "Here is
another book that reveals how seducers operate." This simple
juxtaposition was "calculated" to remind someone "of the picture
on Time Magazine of all these people lying around dead." (Tr. p.
147 - Dr. Goetchius)
From all of the testimony it is clear that the traditional
use of the word "Cult" has changed so that we now have, since the
middle 1970's, a new meaning to the word. It is now understood
to mean "brainwashing of members" (Tr. p. 28), deceitful
recruiting (Tr. p. 28), a mischievous group that is evil and
ready to control you and take your money (Tr. p. 113), harmful to
their members (Tr. p. 20), undermining American values (Tr. p.
20). Cults are claimed to be just about every bad thing in the
book these days, and with the pervasive images of Manson and Jim
Jones hanging over us, any group that is called a Cult is
immediately associated with those two people.
As stated by Dr. Melton, "to call someone a Cult is the
1970's equivalent of labeling them a Pinko (Communist) in the
days of McCarthyism". (Tr. p. 49) Once the accusation is made,
that stigma remains even if proven to be totally wrong.

The Court agrees with the statement of the witness Dr.
Rodney Stark when he stated:
"If all that the defendants were to do
was write a book even though real nasty
to Witness Lee's theology, we wouldn't
be here today because that is fair in
our American Society. You can do that.
But the second you start talking
. . . naming names and events,
discrediting events, sexual hanky-panky,
financial hanky-panky, or indeed getting
to a certain point of quoting a man's
theological statements diametrically
opposed to what the man is saying, then
I think we have . . . We are not
talking about religion, we are talking
about truth, we are talking about libel,
we are talking about fairness, we are
talking about a whole constellation of
things." (Tr. pp. 171-172)
The damage to the plaintiffs cannot be erased by this
action, but the following awards of punitive damages will
vindicate the plaintiffs and deter others similarly situated from
issuing further deliberate untruths about the plaintiffs. (Secord
v. Schlachter, 58 Fed.Supp. 56-58 (1983)).
Therefore, the Court awards punitive damages in favor of the
plaintiffs and against the defendants as follows:
For the plaintiff Witness Lee as against Neil T. Duddy
One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00).
For the plaintiff Witness Lee as against Schwengeler-Verlag
One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00).
For the plaintiff Church in Anaheim as against Neil T. Duddy
Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00).

For the plaintiff Church in Anaheim as against Schwengeler-
Verlag Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00).
For the plaintiff William T. Freeman as against Neil T.
Duddy Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00).
For the plaintiff William T. Freeman as against Schwengeler-
Verlag Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00).